You are here

Saturday Afternoon: Persecution of Matt Hale and the lie of equal rights under the law

Carolyn Yeager speaks with Evelyn Hutcheson, mother of Reverend Matt Hale. Ms. Hutcheson describes new efforts to free the founder of The New Church of the Creator, now called The Creativity Movement, from the 40-year prison sentence of which he has already served 11 years.

Carolyn discusses the persecution of nationalist parties in Germany from 1949 until today's NPD, which still works to keep the flame alive.

Don, a California attorney calls in to speak about wimpy White professionals. 2hr14min.

I'm trying to find out how I can locate a pro bono criminal attorney for Matt Hale who is in the supermax prison in Florence, CO convicted (railroaded) on charges of conspiracy to murder a judge. He's serving his 11th year of a 40-year prison sentence and being treated like a terrorist for a crime he never committed.

His mother, 75-year-old Evelyn Hutcheson, has been working hard to help him by garnering donations and writing articles and granting interviews whenever she can get the chance.
Matt Hale had an attorney (Thomas Durkin) at his trial, who admits to Matt that he failed him, but he won't sign a declaration to that effect and took his $50,000 fee while allowing him to go to prison.

It was my idea to try to find him a pro bono attorney since I know no other way of trying to free him and grant him a fair trial. I've contacted the Innocence Project but they won't take Matt's case because there is no DNA evidence involved in Matt's case and the Innocence Project only works with DNA evidence.

Here's the dilemma: how to defend the undefendable? Matt has been a high-profile case for a long time and his reputation is quite negative in the media --- yet all he is, at worst, is a real jerk. He's never been guilty of any crime, and he has no prior criminal record. He's innocent, but the feds have got him locked down good, and he's even being denied lots of privileges and rights that other prisoners normally get as a matter of law.

His mother has tried to contact Matt's prison counselor but while she leaves messages for him, he won't and doesn't call back. She's written to her senator about Matt's unfair treatment, and the senator doesn't want to get involved.

How to do justice to a man who has had a horrible injustice done to him?

Evelyn Hutcheson and I both know we have to find a pro bono attorney in Colorado, and we've contacted at least 11 pro bono criminal attorneys in Colorado already and have either gotten openly rejected by them or they have repeatedly ignored us.

What do you advise, sir? Your thoughts are most appreciated.

XXXX"

Gerry Spence wrote the following reply:

"I admire your efforts here, XXXX.

I don't know how you get a pro bono lawyer. All lawyers have to make a living. It's serious problem. The pro bono lawyer candidate will want to know how much you are willing to put into the pot, either personally or from donations you have raised from others.

Good luck.

Gerry"

I've heard Evelyn Hutcheson say in a despairing moment that she believes that the feds have got Matt Hale right where they want him, meaning, cornered and rendered helpless.
How can we undo this situation where the government has seemingly made it impossible for anyone to rescue Matt?

I agree with you that Matt Hale does need to be rescued for the good of the Cause. But it seems the most difficult thing in the world to find a competent lawyer who will work cheap, or free. Just doesn't happen. Don from California is not a criminal attorney and probably wouldn't approach anyone on Matt's behalf.

I'm going to be talking more about this on Monday's Heretics Hour because it has really gotten into me. Matt is a lawyer himself and has prepared briefs and legal applications that seem excellent. I'm going to read some of them. He needs money and a lot of support.

There are quite a lot of parallels between this case and that of Edgar Steele. For example both defendants were lawyers themselves but chose to employ incompetent lawyers to represent them. Both of them would have been better off getting rid of their legal counsel and conducting their own defence. In both cases there were trumped up charges on flimsy evidence that should have been easy to destroy. There were hostile or unsympathetic judges and fraudulent proseciutors in both cases.

It seems to me that there was an element of victim consciousness because both defendants were victims. It is a sign of lack of consciousness or awareness . (Victim "unconsciousness" might be a better term.) You have to take responsibility for the choices you make. If deep down you believe yourself to be a victim then you will create situations where you can prove to yourself that you are right. "Yes I am a victim and that proves it!" Victim consciousness has to be integrated into your emotional body or your psyche mainly by adopting the habit of taking responsibility for everything that happens to you, past and present. It then starts to lose its power. While I do feel very sympathetic about their predicament, at the same time I do feel they should have taken control of the situation and really, they have only themselves to blame.

From what I know about this so far, I don't see much parallel between the cases except superficial -- the ones you noted. I have not been able to work up real sympathy for Edgar Steele, but I do have it for Matt Hale.

I don't see any evidence of Matt Hale having a "victim consciousness or unconciousness." I will discuss the evidence (or lack of it) presented at the trial on Monday's show. It's quite interesting, imo, and Matt has legally answered it. Why he waited until 2012-13 to get started, I don't know. Maybe it's taken him this long to get hold of the law books and study all the case histories. He cites a lot of them.

I am glad you disagreed with JoshuF's comment. Right off, the sophistry behind such a comment reveals that a sophisticated form of blaming the victim is merely a rationalization and false justification for the onlooker to excuse himself or herself from doing anything to come to the aid of the innocent.

But there's another response to the comment that's warranted: Right out of the gate, Matt Hale's whole mission has been to challenge, correct and test the system, while believing in the Bill of Rights. Skipping over his college editorial writings, one can recognize that the denial of his law license after passing the final law exam the first time was immediately met with a legal challenge, and the State of Illinois came back with an unconstitutional response to Matt. In effect, the State of Illinois said, "Your right to free association ends when you seek to become a member of the bar." If you look at each and every scrape Matt Hale's gotten into, each one represents some kind of test or challenge to the rule of law. He was working on "copyright infringement" just before he got arrested. At worst, he was naive in thinking the law would always protect him -- IMO.

The answer to your question as to why Matt waited to start to work on fighting for his freedom is the following: Matt had an appeals attorney, Clifford Barnard and he and his attorney worked on Matts appeals from the beginning of his imprisonment. when they had finished all of Matts appeals, his attorney was then off the case. At that time, Matt became pro se and began working on appeals, petitions and lawsuits. He has been fighting for his freedom from the beginning.

I am the mother of Matt Hale. For those of you that didn't sit through that trial, keep your closed mind to yourself. Judge James T. Moody was prejudice against Matt. That is evident due to the fact that he allowed another mans crime into this trial. The prosecutor David Weisman was prejudice, due to the fact that he is Jewish. Matts attorney was guilty of "Ineffective Assistance of Counsel" because he never presented a defense, never called a witness and when Matt wanted to testify, he told Matt that he wasn't prepared to do that. He was either prejudice ,biased or both. He told the jury that they should find Matt guilty of moral charges.

So, now you need to clear your mind before making statements about something of which you know nothing about. Matt wasn't there for the entire jury selection, only 48%. The law says that he must either be there for the entire jury selection or sign a waiver that he didn't need to be there. Matt never signed a waiver.

The prosecutors final statement in his closing argument before the jury was that the government had evidence that Matt ordered one of his followers to go out and kill and injure many people. That was not "in evidence" in the trial. Thomas Durkin never objected and Judge Moody said nothing.

The jury foreman disobeyed Judge Moody's order not to read anything about Matt Hale and not follow the Media coverage. When he went into the jury room, he was in fear for his life because he thought Matts followers might harm or kill him and his partner. This jury foreman was a man that worked along side Ricky Byrdsong, a man that was killed by Ben Smith. Think this man (homosexual) went into the jury room ready to hear the evidence(no evidence)? Really!

Tony Evola, the government informant taped conversations with Matt for over two years and couldn't get Matt to tell him to kill anyone. Matt thought Evola was a harmless mentally challenged man, knew he was an informant, wasn't concerned because he knew he would always follow the law. When the FBI realized that Evola thought the target was a man, they had Evola send an email to Matt, shortly before his arrest, mentioning the femala (female) rat as the target.

This is for the people that think my son is guilty of anything except being naive, pay close attention to this fact: the jury is instructed to consider the evidence OR lack of evidence in this case when deciding a verdict. There wasn't any evidence in this case, that Matt committed a crime, the conclusion is that the trial was prejudiced, biased and tainted. The jury, five jurors being black, came back with a guilty verdict not because of any evidence, but rather the fact that they were prejudiced, biased and their minds were tainted.

The fact is this: blaming Matt for a crime that he did not commit because you don't like him is as wrong as the jury that found him guilty because they didn't like him. At the least, Matts trial should have been a mistrial and if people with closed minds would let a little light in, they may see the light!